Dude. Who gives a flying fuck if BSV gets 1,000 blocks ahead of ABC? It will simply be a less valuable, less used altcoin that has a needlessly high hash rate and is 7-8 spots lower in the market cap rankings than BCH. It's not like the exchanges and everyone else is gonna back-peddle and say "Oh shit, we messed up. Guess BSV is BCH after all." That's not how it works.

That’s definitely not how it works. PoW is much stronger then ‘proof of exchange ownership ego’

i guess things are winding down a little though note the infantile insistence that ABC do the replay protection. i would've thought it was polite for the chain no one wants or uses to fork again to implement it.

so now we'll have another bitcoin, but one vastly less credible than BCH or bitcoin gold or bitcore or all the other ones. SV will soon be worth less than the obscurest shitforks.

Can someone point to where it says bitcoin was supposed to be decentralized in the white paper?

Everywhere, but the first is in it's opening argument abstract. Digital signatures provide part of the solution, but the mainbenefits are lost if a trusted third party is still required to prevent double-spending

The revocation of a trusted third or central party is the definition of decentralization.

Can someone point to where it says bitcoin was supposed to be decentralized in the white paper?

It doesn't. It just states that it is p2p electronic cash. However, it is much better to have many entities mining rather than fewer entities mining. More entities mining helps ensure that the mining nodes are competing rather than colluding. If you make the barrier for entry too high, you end up with an oligarchy that have a good likelihood of entering into a cartel. (Although it is abundantly clear in BCH case that the two big mining alliances in BCH are actually competing. However, it has resulted in a split, and now each chain is mostly being support by one alliance. I wouldn't go so far as state that it is a "cartel" but it is obvious that both the BCHABC chain is now run by Bitmain and it's allies and BCHSV is now run by nChain and it's allies.) Also, in order to be true p2p electronic cash, it would be nice if most people have the option of performing an independent audit of what the miners are actually doing, by running a full node. Although a proper SPV wallet can assure that at least your transactions are valid, it would be nice to be assured that the miners are not colluding and pulling some dubious shit. If you make it prohibitively expensive for anyone to be able to conduct their own audit, we all have to rely on the fiscally capable to keep tabs on the miners. How is that really any better of an alternative than just using banks which are controlled by a central bank of the government?

Can someone point to where it says bitcoin was supposed to be decentralized in the white paper?

It doesn't. It just states that it is p2p electronic cash. However, it is much better to have many entities mining rather than fewer entities mining. More entities mining helps ensure that the mining nodes are competing rather than colluding. If you make the barrier for entry too high, you end up with an oligarchy that have a good likelihood of entering into a cartel. (Although it is abundantly clear in BCH case that the two big mining alliances in BCH are actually competing. However, it has resulted in a split, and now each chain is mostly being support by one alliance. I wouldn't go so far as state that it is a "cartel" but it is obvious that both the BCHABC chain is now run by Bitmain and it's allies and BCHSV is now run by nChain and it's allies.) Also, in order to be true p2p electronic cash, it would be nice if most people have the option of performing an independent audit of what the miners are actually doing, by running a full node. Although a proper SPV wallet can assure that at least your transactions are valid, it would be nice to be assured that the miners are not colluding and pulling some dubious shit. If you make it prohibitively expensive for anyone to be able to conduct their own audit, we all have to rely on the fiscally capable to keep tabs on the miners. How is that really any better of an alternative than just using banks which are controlled by a central bank of the government?

But it seems that temporary centralization of the mining nodes on SV is what is needed to push the global adoption for p2p electronic cash. SV wants to lock down the protocol, SV wants big business and enterprise level use of bitcoin. ABC does not want any of these things, hence the implementation of DSV which effectively makes bitcoin illegal.

Bitcoin, a peer-to-peer electronic cash system for the world. BTC tips are greatly appreciated 35BqJwcycsLDoPrBxmxuh1e4MY7bcDPvGW

Can someone point to where it says bitcoin was supposed to be decentralized in the white paper?

It doesn't. It just states that it is p2p electronic cash. However, it is much better to have many entities mining rather than fewer entities mining. More entities mining helps ensure that the mining nodes are competing rather than colluding. If you make the barrier for entry too high, you end up with an oligarchy that have a good likelihood of entering into a cartel. (Although it is abundantly clear in BCH case that the two big mining alliances in BCH are actually competing. However, it has resulted in a split, and now each chain is mostly being support by one alliance. I wouldn't go so far as state that it is a "cartel" but it is obvious that both the BCHABC chain is now run by Bitmain and it's allies and BCHSV is now run by nChain and it's allies.) Also, in order to be true p2p electronic cash, it would be nice if most people have the option of performing an independent audit of what the miners are actually doing, by running a full node. Although a proper SPV wallet can assure that at least your transactions are valid, it would be nice to be assured that the miners are not colluding and pulling some dubious shit. If you make it prohibitively expensive for anyone to be able to conduct their own audit, we all have to rely on the fiscally capable to keep tabs on the miners. How is that really any better of an alternative than just using banks which are controlled by a central bank of the government?

But it seems that temporary centralization of the mining nodes on SV is what is needed to push the global adoption for p2p electronic cash. SV wants to lock down the protocol, SV wants big business and enterprise level use of bitcoin. ABC does not want any of these things, hence the implementation of DSV which effectively makes bitcoin illegal.

My concern with SV is it is obvious that if anyone comes along and has competing ideas, Dr Wright will just threaten to ruin and orphan them. How is that encouraging free and open competition? Agree with us or else?However, if I really had any skin in BCH, which I don't, I would prefer SV over ABC. Bitmain is the absolute worst. Anything that counters them is welcome.

You realize Dr Wright doesn't respect people sitting in their pajamas and daytrading. To show your support, get a non-Bitmain Asic and start mining. (Or build platforms that actually give SV use cases.)

My concern with SV is it is obvious that if anyone comes along and has competing ideas, Dr Wright will just threaten to ruin and orphan them. How is that encouraging free and open competition? Agree with us or else?

It's because of self-centered people like Dr. Craig that regulations must come to this market. The crypto market already had a bad reputation. Dr. Craig made things much worse with his malicious threats. His intentions are highly questionable. He is not worthy of our support.

Can someone point to where it says bitcoin was supposed to be decentralized in the white paper?

From Satoshi's introduction of the whitepaper:

Quote

I've developed a new open source P2P e-cash system called Bitcoin. It's completely decentralized, with no central server or trusted parties, because everything is based on crypto proof instead of trust.

Can someone point to where it says bitcoin was supposed to be decentralized in the white paper?

From Satoshi's introduction of the whitepaper:

Quote

I've developed a new open source P2P e-cash system called Bitcoin. It's completely decentralized, with no central server or trusted parties, because everything is based on crypto proof instead of trust.

Very selfish people created big mess with this Fork, I personally never liked this small s*it coin bch . I really hope that people believing in the idea Satoshi for decentralization will BOYCOTT the two ugly kids of bch . Both of them have to go into the toilet .